How does???

[PlayerRep]

Foley could have asked the question for dozens of different reasons, and none of them would have had anything to do with punishing her. One, he might have just wanted to know for his own purposes, or for future knowledge. Two, he may have been asked that question by someone else (like someone else in the university, the accused or his parents or his attorney, etc.), and was trying to get a definitive answer to respond. Three, he may have wanted to know if any or all of the parties were bound to keep things confidential. Four, he may have wanted to know so that he could put it in a report he was preparing. Five, he may have wanted to know so that the university could consider pointing out to her or the parties, that the proceedings and results are supposed to be confidential.

I will also point out that I doubt that Foley had any authority institute or suggest punishment of an accuser in this university process. This process is part of a different part of the university. I suspect that Foley wasn't even privy to the details of what was going on in the process, and who was involved. I don't believe the university spreads this type of information around; in fact, I believe they keep it among a very small group of people. Foley, as the university external relations and press guy, probably saw what had been reported in the media, and then asked for clarification in the email. It was probably a very small and spontaneous thing.
Even if it was more than this, there was no suggestion whatsoever that he sough to punish her.

I will use getgrizzy's athletic analogy. If the Big Sky conference's head press guy, while watching a game on tv, sends an internal email asking whether a referee made the correct call on a particular play, do you think he is suggesting that the referee be reprimanded?

if he had wanted to know for any of those reasons he almost certainly would've said so. like, "i'm just curious for my own edification (or because someone asked me to find out), but is it not...?" but even if he did any of those things, his ultimate purpose for asking is to punish the girl, is it not?

there's rarely anything spontaneous in an email. had he been in the same room and reading the article for the first time with couture, then responded verbally it would be spontaneous. or maybe if couture emailed him the story and he read it and then fired back a reply with that question, it could kind of be considered spontaneous. but foley had plenty of time to craft his email. remember he isn't writing to one of his high school pals, this is the school's dean of students.

Nope, people don't normally state the reason for questions when they are asked, especially in emails when it takes time to type them, and especially when the reason is not important to the question. Also, way too many emails are sent too quickly and don't spontaneously.

gonna have to strongly disagree with you on that. people, especially professionals in situations like this, carefully give details in order to not have their motive misconstrued. it isn't like someone calling up burger king to see what today's special is. this is a very controversial, tenuous topic, not unimportant and spur of the moment. one that you carefully word everything you're saying, then re-read it to make sure you aren't conveying it in a way that someone could mistake your tone. some people even do this on message boards at times, as you know very well.

Nope, you are completely wrong on how people use email, especially internal email. People don't explain the reason for every question. You ought to do some research or get out more often. You really don't know what you're talking about, both on this narrow subject and generally, in my view.

 

[Grizfan-24]

This is what foley may have been referring to:
Page 5 of the student conduct code (not difficult to find, nor explain to the general public):
1. All disciplinary proceedings are closed to the public.
2. The University, including individuals involved in a disciplinary
proceeding, will not disclose information to anyone not connected with the
proceeding. The fact that there is a disciplinary proceeding concerning the incident
may be disclosed; however, the identity of individual students will not be disclosed.
3. The University, including individuals involved in a disciplinary
proceeding, will disclose the results of the proceedings, including sanctions
imposed, only to those who need to know the results for purposes of recordkeeping,
enforcement of the sanctions, further proceedings, or compliance
with Federal or State law. The fact that a disciplinary proceeding has been
concluded and appropriate action taken may be disclosed. The Campus Security Act of
1990 allows, but does not require, the University to disclose the results to an alleged
victim of a violent crime.

Just throwing this out there for public consumption. For me I am tired. So very tired.

 

[getgrizzy]

if he had wanted to know for any of those reasons he almost certainly would've said so. like, "i'm just curious for my own edification (or because someone asked me to find out), but is it not...?" but even if he did any of those things, his ultimate purpose for asking is to punish the girl, is it not?

there's rarely anything spontaneous in an email. had he been in the same room and reading the article for the first time with couture, then responded verbally it would be spontaneous. or maybe if couture emailed him the story and he read it and then fired back a reply with that question, it could kind of be considered spontaneous. but foley had plenty of time to craft his email. remember he isn't writing to one of his high school pals, this is the school's dean of students.

Nope, people don't normally state the reason for questions when they are asked, especially in emails when it takes time to type them, and especially when the reason is not important to the question. Also, way too many emails are sent too quickly and don't spontaneously.

gonna have to strongly disagree with you on that. people, especially professionals in situations like this, carefully give details in order to not have their motive misconstrued. it isn't like someone calling up burger king to see what today's special is. this is a very controversial, tenuous topic, not unimportant and spur of the moment. one that you carefully word everything you're saying, then re-read it to make sure you aren't conveying it in a way that someone could mistake your tone. some people even do this on message boards at times, as you know very well.

Nope, you are completely wrong on how people use email, especially internal email. People don't explain the reason for every question. You ought to do some research or get out more often. You really don't know what you're talking about, both on this narrow subject and generally, in my view.

in general they don't, but specific to professionals discussing a subject like this they almost always do. most emails in a setting like the one foley and couture were in have an automated attached disclaimer on the bottom that states (reminds the user) that the email can be made public. wow, you really are lost, aren't you?

 

[EverettGriz]

This is what foley may have been referring to:
Page 5 of the student conduct code (not difficult to find, nor explain to the general public):
1. All disciplinary proceedings are closed to the public.
2. The University, including individuals involved in a disciplinary
proceeding, will not disclose information to anyone not connected with the
proceeding. The fact that there is a disciplinary proceeding concerning the incident
may be disclosed; however, the identity of individual students will not be disclosed.
3. The University, including individuals involved in a disciplinary
proceeding, will disclose the results of the proceedings, including sanctions
imposed, only to those who need to know the results for purposes of recordkeeping,
enforcement of the sanctions, further proceedings, or compliance
with Federal or State law. The fact that a disciplinary proceeding has been
concluded and appropriate action taken may be disclosed. The Campus Security Act of
1990 allows, but does not require, the University to disclose the results to an alleged
victim of a violent crime.

Just throwing this out there for public consumption. For me I am tired. So very tired.

Good post.

 

[tnt]

Actually it is as clear as mud.....

Did she disclose the names of the accused players to the folks at the Missoulian? (She was allowed to tell them according to the rules, and even the outcome.

By lodging a complaint did she waive her rights to report to law enforcement? The code says so.

The only thing that is apparent to me is their was a dearth of leadership (or at least a clue as what to do) from the top down an unfortunately the firings occured from the bottom up (just not far enough IMHO) Foley was/is as busy as Chuck Colson during Watergate trying to spin the news when it can't be controlled. Its his job. As always its not what happened its the coverup afterwards that causes the problem.

As far as the Foley email goes, for a man who is paid (a lot) to communicate for the entire University, one would THINK his communication on such a sensitive matter (and knowing it could be read by anyone) would be clear.......

 

[WILD_CAT]

I'm just waiting for the UM email server and all it's disks to mysteriously disappear or burn in a very hot fire this week

 

['68griz]

This is what foley may have been referring to:
Page 5 of the student conduct code (not difficult to find, nor explain to the general public):
1. All disciplinary proceedings are closed to the public.
2. The University, including individuals involved in a disciplinary
proceeding, will not disclose information to anyone not connected with the
proceeding. The fact that there is a disciplinary proceeding concerning the incident
may be disclosed; however, the identity of individual students will not be disclosed.
3. The University, including individuals involved in a disciplinary
proceeding, will disclose the results of the proceedings, including sanctions
imposed, only to those who need to know the results for purposes of recordkeeping,
enforcement of the sanctions, further proceedings, or compliance
with Federal or State law. The fact that a disciplinary proceeding has been
concluded and appropriate action taken may be disclosed. The Campus Security Act of
1990 allows, but does not require, the University to disclose the results to an alleged
victim of a violent crime.

Just throwing this out there for public consumption. For me I am tired. So very tired.

Good post.

I agree - good post. And I, too, am so very tired of all this.

 

[ranco]

+1